When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?

That's not really a countering point though. The argument is simply that the people who choose to be homosexual are going against what they would normally feel for whatever reasons that might be. They're not saying sexuality is a choice, they're saying that changing your sexuality is a choice.

The majority always seem to make the argument that you are naturally straight but can choose to be ***. Which makes several huge assumptions.

And it also is what makes them think things like straight camp work.

Though a significant number of those people likely make the remark because they are actually bisexual and deny the *** part of their selves. Homophobia, for instance, has been linked to closeted homosexual desire (unsurprisingly). Some are probably gays that don't want to own up to it out of self hate, but most are likely people that like both men and women and pretend they are straight.

I suppose that could give the illusion of a "choice." But I have never once been attracted to a female sexually. I can appreciate feminine beauty and I certainly understand the notion of what is "****" in a woman, but it has never done anything for me.

I remember when I first started to develop my sexuality--men were the only thing in my (albeit tame) fantasies. It wasn't until several months (maybe even a year) before I realized that I was different and that it meant I was ***. I remember trying after that to imagine women and just couldn't get into it. I was so unexciting and felt pointless.

I also went through that period where I tried to force myself to be straight (which really sucks btw--if you are a parent, just tell your kid it's fine to be either, because they end up hurting themselves and other people).

One of my best friends told me she liked me, and we started going out. Eventually, I realized that my sexuality was part of me and was never going to change, so I ended it. If you've never experienced it, hurting one of your closest friends like that SUCKS. Because you know she was into the relationship, even if you weren't. (Luckily, we made up maybe a year after that and she's still one of my closest friends, like a decade later).

It wasn't like I imagined a *** scene with a man and woman and just thought the man looked like more fun. Women have just never been part of the equation for me.

[EDIT]

All this is what I have felt while being CONSCIOUS of my sexuality. Any choice had to happen before my sexual fantasy began, because it isn't like I tried to imagine having *** before I had any desire to.

So you either think:

1. I'm lying. 2. I'm confused about the order of events. 3. Or the choice wasn't a conscious one.

1. Well, there's nothing I can tell you to convince you otherwise. Until sexuality as the result of biological processes is proved, you won't believe anything else.

2. I knew what *** was before I became sexual (I remember laughing hysterically in class when I found out a man was supposed to put his ***** in a ******--it seemed to ridiculous to me. Then the teacher yelled at me about how it wasn't a joke). I imagine I would remember deliberating my sexuality. Or have at least had ANY interest in finding out more about straight *** somewhere along the line. I was also never one of the boys that thought girls had cooties. I hated playing with most boys--I always wanted to hang with the chicas.

3. If it wasn't a conscious choice, then I'm hardly blameworthy for it. Furthermore, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to change your sexuality after it becomes part of your conscious experience. ESPECIALLY if it is correlated with different biological development after the fact.

What's truly horrifying about the notion of it being choice is the idea that people will start structuring child rearing programs designed to prevent children from being ***. Here's an idea--get over it and accept the kid you get.

[blah blah blah] So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no *** or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality. [blah blah blah] So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.

Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.

a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can. b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.

I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a **** who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a *******, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.

But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.

idiggory wrote:

And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.

There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.

"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough *** people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.

____________________________

I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?

Oh man I hate these questions Not because they're bad ones, but because they were the questions the University of Delaware's Residence Life program for freshmen were forced to ask, which (among a controversial racism definition) led to the entire program being scrapped and entirely rewritten when lawsuits were threatened. I was an RA during that year, and the fallout was pretty nasty (luckily I was in upperclass honors housing, not freshmen, so I escaped most of the blaze).

It did make senior year as an RA pretty darn easy. No more mandatory meetings with students, no forced group activities, no lectures. Only thing I had to deal with really were underage drinking parties and students having *** in the study lounge.

The question is utterly irrelevant for the repeal of DADT, but really I don't expect people to stay on topic this far in

The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.

I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

I reckon you should read before you write. Recruitment difficulties don't really relate to people on active service.

Yeah, I did read it. I had first typed, "I'm not sure it matters, I imagine people from the bible belt didn't want to serve alongside black people, either. They'll either adapt or find another job."

But then I reread it, and thought you were talking about those already enlisted.

Either way, my point stands. I reckon they'll get over it. Or they won't serve in the military. Tough ******

ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can. b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.

I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a **** who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a *******, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.

But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.

The fact that I've NEVER met someone who remembers making it is a much stronger sample.

And it's only dumb when you make a retarded assumption like "it's a choice." Can a black man will himself to be white? Can someone with ADD will themselves to not have it?

BASED ON EVIDENCE, sexuality as a biological process is the most likely scenario. Does that mean it is correct? No. But it certainly isn't stupid to assume that it isn't something a homosexual person can change. I've never seen any scientific evidence to support homosexuality as a choice. I ask you again--link me some. Because the picture of sexuality as being optional is truly awkward to me based on my own experience and all scientific evidence I have ever seen. Until you can link any research that favors choice over biology, I have no reason to accept it.

Quote:

"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough *** people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.

A. I'm not arguing that it is genetic. I've tried to avoid using that word as much as possible--sorry if I slipped up. I'm arguing that our sexuality is likely the result of a miriad of biological events (you know, like EVERY other aspect of organism development).

Do I think there could be a *** gene? Yes. Is that the only option? No.

Why does that matter? Because you are assuming that there's one way to become ***. I seriously doubt that's the case. There are more ways to have x hair or skin color than pure genetics. Different biological influences can change your emotional inclinations as you develop.

I'm saying that I find it extremely likely that homosexuality can be described the same way as every other biological trait on the planet--through a mixture of genetics vs. physical environment.

In the post I mentioned above, there was more than just proof that genetics might play a role. For example, I mentioned that the probability of a mother's second son is 33% more likely to be *** than her first (regardless of the first's sexuality). There is a correlation among mothers with *** children suggesting that her immune system will become stronger as she produces more males, and it will attack antibodies that we know influence sexuality in other animals. NOT ALL MOTHERS SHOW THIS, no. But not all others have to. It's merely one factor that might help contribute to a varying sexuality. But there is a definite correlation here in increased antibody numbers relative to the number of males a women has and the chances of later ones being ***.

They've also done studies testing the X chromosomes in women. Normally, these switch on and off so that only one is active (and each is active about half the time). And the process is normally understood as random. But there's a correlation between mothers with *** children and x chromosomes in which one stays "on" for much longer than it is expected to. Mothers without *** children have a much lower probability of the deformity. (Note- One chromosome goes into one egg, so some eggs would have Xs that are prone to short periods and others would have ones prone to long periods--I don't know which is assumed to potentially cause homosexuality).

Identical twins are 53-70% more likely to be *** if their twin is ***. Fraternal twins are something like 11-13% more likely. Non twins are far less likely. This would support a hypothesis that uses genetics combined with womb contitions.

And there are many more theories being tested. The actual brain structures are different in gays and heteros, along with the pheromone thing. The idea that a choice can actually cause huge developmental changes is a bold claim, and not represented in scientific evidence we have. We've seen the mind forcing small changes, but it's extremely rare for large ones to occur. And most of those involve forcing hormone switches through intense emotional stress. Homosexuality would be an even larger change cause on a much larger scale We're talking about a stress-free choice leading your body to alter the development of the brain in a significant way.

Here's a list of physical differences that have been shown to have different correlation in men and women (from wikipedia--feel free to check the sources (link)):

Quote:

-*** men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-*** men.[48] -*** men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. ******* women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.[49] -The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in *** men than in heterosexual men.[50] -The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of *** men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[28] -The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in *** men than in non-*** men,[27] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[51] -*** men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[52] -The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-*** women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[53] -The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in *** men than in non-*** men,[54] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[55] -The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[56] -*** and non-*** people emit different underarm odors.[57] -*** and non-*** people's brains respond differently to two human *** pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[24][58][59] -One region of the brain (amygdala) is more active in *** men than non-*** men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[60] -Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-*** and ******* women.[53][61][62][63][64][65] -*** men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-*** men and women;[66][67][68] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[69]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in *** people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[28] -A study of 50 *** men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[70] -*** men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[70] Length of limbs and hands of *** men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[70]

[EDITED to note that some of these haven't had dedicated studies, but also that the use of words like "may" are to demonstrate that it isn't universal among gays but does show some correlation.]

Maybe homosexuality is a choice, but it seems clear it is hardly a free one (and is actually hugely influenced by your environment). And it's not a choice you can just change your mind about down the line.

A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.

It's about gays and military, you should've seen the 50 page suckfest coming.

Also, in before page 50.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?

My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, ***, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small *****, or a large *****. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.

Seems to me that it is, one of my best friends is ***. I grew up and enjoyed girls, he grew up and enjoyed other guys. Having known him my whole life he has never once looked at a girl, he has never kissed a girl, he has never dated a girl. His room at home was decorated with boy bands, and male models, while mine was of half naked chicks and big boobs.

If he made a solid choice to be ***, he did so basing it off no personal experience with the other side, he made it when he was 8 when he told everyone he likes guys. Ironically around the same age that girls start liking boys, and boys still think they are icky.

But since there is no hardcore proof either way, what does 2 people choosing to have *** with each other have to do with anything. What is your point.

Great example of the difference between what people want in the abstract and what they support directly:

Do you think homosexuals / gays and lesbians who DO publicly
disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the
military or not?"
Should be Should not Unsure
allowed be allowed
% % %
12/9-12/10 77 21 2

and...

"Do you think the current Democratic Congress should repeal the
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and allow *** men and women to serve
openly in the military or do you think they should not repeal it so
they continue to serve but not openly?"
Should repeal Should not Unsure
repeal
% % %
11/15-18/10 47 48 5

So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed. Confused poll takers? Who knows? I just always find it interesting how different wordings of what is essentially the same question can so dramatically change the outcome of the poll.

What's interesting is that when the issue is asked without any association to an action people overwhelmingly support allowing gays to serve openly. But when its associated with a specific legislative action, the support drops. And the more specific the association, the lower it drops. If they ask just about whether "federal legislation" should be repealed, 58% say it should be. But when DADT is specifically named, that number drops.

Doesn't have anything specific to this topic. It's just an observation about poll results themselves.

You might like to double check the dates of when the two polls were taken.

____________________________

In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

A. You are comparing polls from two different sources. How about you compare a poll from the SAME poll, especially when it covers the same period. Assuming a news source polls its viewers, then each one is going to have at least SOME skew one way or another. The point is to try and evaluate all the data from each source to figure out the feelings of the public per time period.

So, the first poll you linked is from ABC. It shows increasing support for an appeal over several years, with a massive increase over the early 90s.

[EDIT] Note--this is my minor opposition. B is the important part of this post. [/EDIT]

B. The second poll you referenced gives no other data for comparison over time. Furthermore, it adds an additional factor into the mix. Note that the question was *NOT* "should DADT be repealed?" It was "should the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS" repeal DADT.

If you were someone that supported the repeal, but worried about being rushed (which is what the majority of republican senators claimed as their position), you'd vote against it.

Furthermore, that poll was taken before the pentagon released its report saying the repeal would have no significant affect on combat effectiveness, which would have disbanded a lot of concern for people worried about "rushing" a repeal. Notice how the repeal actually passed this time around due to that report...

Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

Wow, didn't you know support those things... surely there is more to simply being different that causes you support any form of segregation or discrimination.

Sir X wrote:

You don't seem to be understanding what I was saying but whatever. You're getting caught up in the legality of DADT which wasn't my point at all.

It seems that your point is that a person's attitude towards an assumed homosexual isn't going to change overnight when that person comes out of the closet, because you already "knew" that the person was homosexual. Am I right? If so, I've addressed your concern.

Sir X wrote:

Given how he can't explain or quantify the privacy issue, I don't think he really understands it beyond "it's an argument he's heard from some top people" We'll see, I'm playing his 20 questions game he loves so much, so maybe he'll let me in on the secret. I think he agrees with the privacy argument, but it's hard to tell, maybe he doesn't and he's just arguing it for no reason.

Although I never thought of it until someone else mentioned it, this isn't just because the "top people" are using it, just an argument that I figured more people could relate to because the "top people" are using it. You knew from the beginning that this was a game, as you stated.

You know that this was all a game from the start. You never thought the two were the same, but you pretended that you did think they were the same just so I can make my argument the basis of your argument. When you realized that you couldn't get anything from me, then you admitted that you don't think the two were the same. If this weren't a game, you would have stated that from the beginning. So, if I have to look "silly" to get my point across, then so be it.

Belkira wrote:

I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

Uh, they both aren't on the same scale. Your sexuality has nothing to do with getting shot at so that's a fail comparison. You're actually doing the same exact thing the bigots against homosexuals are doing. You're making a false comparison to someone's lifestyle to the ability to perform their duty. Many people joined the Army to be in combat, so getting shot at, isn't considered a "problem" to them because that's what they joined up for.

Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.

Belkira wrote:

It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule.

So, you have no problem taking a communal shower with guys? In the cases where you KNOW the person might be interested in you? You missing the whole concept of DADT. The whole point is that no one knows. DADT causes people to behave a certain way. Repealing that allows them to act differently.

If the people didn't change, then there wouldn't be a reason to repeal DADT now would it?

Besides, I'm sure there are some homosexuals who chose not to join because of DADT

Belkira wrote:

You've got issues, Alma.

Explain.. If you disagree with the concept of removing yourself from potential problematic situations, then you my friend, is the one with problems.

Nadenu wrote:

That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac

If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?

That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac

If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?

Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or ***.

I'm not sure if you were responding to "People take offense to such things"; "It happens, it's not uncommon"; or "You might want to just think before you speak?"

I was referring to "Instead of segregating yourself". That's the problem with society, instead of being proactive and not placing themselves in potential problematic situations, they are reactive.

1. I wont because I wont say anything because I wont be there. 3. No, I took a step further. I believe people should remove themselves from potential problematic situations. In doing so, you are "thinking before talking".

I had this very same argument with a female coworker not too long ago and she said the same thing as you "just think before you talk, don't segregate". Starting that day, I started pointing out all of the sexual references the females were saying in class. This creates a false environment that it's ok to say such things because not many people complain when women say sexual things. Since *** is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about *** and says the wrong thing. Instead of guessing what is PC and what isn't, just don't say anything at all, unless you really know your audience.

Locke wrote:

Point was right in my part you quoted: "If you think they might take offense, don't say anything." Also,

Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.

The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?

My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, ***, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small *****, or a large *****. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.

RDD, you're a tool. So I guess you believe heterosexual men aren't attractive to hot lesbians, only heterosexual women.. This talk that homosexual men are LESS sexual than heterosexual men is nonsense. Men are men.

Afraid of what? You're just throwing around terms and false accusations to make you seem right. Learn something from politics, smearing your opponent doesn't always make you look good. Doing so makes you look stupid.

Nadenu wrote:

Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or ***.

I completely agree, but that's now how the system works. I'm all for complete open showers. But

Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.

I know it is. I'm just pointing out the reality that there has to be more to it than "they are different". If you can't justify the discrimination, then it probably shouldn't occur and simply being different isn't a justification.

lolaxe wrote:

The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.

Any real officer already knows that s/he knows nothing and must rely on the Soldiers and NCO's to be successful. I took a lot of flak because I don't get into that politic nonsense.. I care about two things, the mission and my subordinates.. Take care of your subordinates, they take care of you and the mission, which makes your immediate supervisor happy and his/her supervisor happy and everyone's happy.